The Post-Ukrainian World – The Final Warning to Ukraine’s Handlers to Stop the Looming War

I’s been a while since I looked in the direction of Ukraine on these pages, and, more specifically, at the civil war that Ukraine wages on its citizens for 7 years, calling the whole population of the eastern republics for terrorists, including children, and treating with constant artillery shelling, terror bombings, denial of basic human rights, etc. This conflict was largely frozen with only occasional escalations and “only” a few civilians killed by the Ukrainian shells each day (the current death toll is close to 12000 people among the civilian population of Donbass). All this to a complete silence from the “humane, democratic, freedom-loving” media in the West.

The situation is about to change. Kiev is amassing troops on the borders with both Donbass and Crimea (not reported in the West), and Russia responds in kind, increasing its military capacity there (trumped about in the Western press). Russia has asked Germany and France (and, indirectly, the US) to curb their Ukrainian puppets, but the pleas have fallen deaf ears. The final warning was the summit between Putin, Merkel and Macron.

I am translating below an analytical article, highlighting the results (or lack thereof) from that summit. The article is written by Rostislav Ischenko on Cont platform: Мир без Украины

The World without Ukraine

Video conference in the format of Putin / Merkel / Macron took place anyway, and this is good news. Nothing else can be called as “good” about this.

One can, of course, be glad that Russia has achieved a discussion of Ukraine in the absence of Ukraine. For seven years, Kiev has been tormented by the very idea of the possibility of such a format.

It can be considered a serious breakthrough that the Germans and the French listened in silence and took note of the Russian position on Ukraine, without even trying to seriously object. But the absence of a joint statement on the results of the video conference, as well as the obvious difficulties that Russian diplomacy had to overcome in organizing it (contrary to Russian diplomatic tradition, there was even an elegant leak of information about Moscow’s proposal so that Paris and Berlin would be faced with a choice: still agree to the video conference or take responsibility for the consequences of its failure), show that France and Germany do not plan to change the position from one of a sideline observer, who does not attempt to stop the United States and Ukraine from fomenting war, to that of active intervention to prevent it.

There is no doubt that the conference was devoted to the issue of preventing the war, which becomes inevitable as a result of Ukrainian provocations. This was stated, contrary to the custom, in clear text by Vladimir Putin’s press secretary Peskov. His comment on the essence and results of the conference is interesting in principle, but it is doubly interesting, since Peskov is a career diplomat, therefore, what he said can be considered not only from the point of view of the presidential press secretary reporting the position of his boss, but also from a professional point of view.

First, Peskov said that the conference was dedicated not only to Ukraine, although Ukraine was also discussed. Probably, in addition to Ukraine, they also talked about the weather, the role of the United States and the possible consequences of the conflict unleashed by Kiev for all participants of the conference, both cumulatively, and for each one individually. But one way or another, everything they talked about was connected with Ukraine. This follows from the fact that, deciphering the content of the conference, Peskov did not name any more important issues. This is understandable: the war is on the threshold, what else can they talk about?

Second, it follows from Peskov’s words that Russia demanded that its allies bring Kiev into a state of adequacy and, if they cannot convince it to comply with the Minsk agreements, then at least force it to stop provocations on the line of demarcation. It is clear that Paris and Berlin evaded specific promises (otherwise Peskov would have talked about them).

Third, Russia has informed its partners that if Ukraine does not mend its ways on its own or they do not mend them for it, a war will begin. Specifically, in the presentation of Peskov, it looked like this: “We express concern about the growing tension and express concern that one way or another the Ukrainian side may take provocative actions that will lead to war.” Thus, Russia has completed the diplomatic preparation of the war, placing the responsibility for its possible start on Kiev, as well as on Paris and Berlin, which Ukraine could not (did not want to) calm down and force it to fulfil its obligations.

So that no one doubts the seriousness of the situation, the conference was held against the background of rumours frilling Russian social networks about the transfer of Russian troops to the Belgorod and Rostov regions, and to Crimea. Videos of a train with armoured vehicles crossing the Crimean Bridge in the direction of the peninsula, as well as columns of Russian troops moving along the roads of the border areas, are distributed on the Internet. The Ministry of Defence and the diplomatic department of Russia could have easily declare these videos as fake or report that the units of the Russian army are always on the move somewhere (they almost constantly have exercises), but this has not been done.

Russia is mysteriously (and against the backdrop of Peskov’s comments — ominously) silent.

Fourth, the European partners are given a chance to jump out of the trap set by the United States. It is clear that the Americans hope that as a result of the beginning of a large-scale Ukrainian-Russian conflict, they will be able to force their allies to go to a complete break up in relations with Russia (not so much political, although they are also of interest, as economical). Therefore, Peskov emphasizes that, when talking about the war, Russia means the civil war in Ukraine, but, so that no one has any doubts, he clarifies: “The Civil war that has already been there.”

Let me remind you that in the war “that’s already been there”, the Ukrainian army and the Nazi battalions practically cut the republics into several parts and cut them off from the border (there was almost the only checkpoint not occupied by Ukraine, to which lead a road that was under constant fire). After that, when the issue of suppressing the uprising in the Donbass was only a matter of time, the almost defeated militia formations suddenly acquired armoured vehicles and artillery (some still claim that hundreds of tanks and artillery systems were “squeezed out” by them from the Ukrainian armed forces with their bare hands), Ukrainian aviation fell massively from the sky, and the command of the militia became so professional that Ukrainian troops began to fall into the cauldrons by whole regiments.

At the same time, the front line (which became the line of demarcation in Minsk) moved away from the Russian border exactly to the distance at which the artillery can support the advanced parts of the republics without leaving the Russian territory.

I don’t want to say anything, it just somehow happened by itself. And Peskov warns the partners that it will be the same again, and informs them in advance that this is a civil war, although Kiev, of course, shouts and will shout about “Russian aggression”, the Supreme Rada once again passes a corresponding resolution, as well as a law that allows (purely theoretically, because in practice there is no power nor means for this) to increase the number of the Armed Forces by five times in one day, by conducting an emergency mobilization of reservists.

As we can see, Ukraine has also completed their political and diplomatic preparations for the war, which it interprets and will interpret not as a civil war, but as a war with Russia.

The fact that the result will be a catastrophic defeat of the Ukrainian Armed Forces is obvious. Putin warned the world about the possible collapse of Ukrainian statehood. But the goals of this war are not military (and not Ukrainian). They are political (and American). The United States, as mentioned above, is trying to prevent Europe’s gradual drift towards expanding economic cooperation with Russia, which in the future should result in political rapprochement.

The reason for the break in Russian-European cooperation should be the conflict in the Donbas, which Washington and Kiev will interpret as a Ukrainian-Russian war, and Moscow – as an internal Ukrainian civil conflict.

Both positions are brought to the leading EU members (France and Germany). The decision is up to them. Russia gave them the opportunity to support its position directly during the last video conference and thus prevent the war. Because if a political decision on the outcome of the conflict had already been made by the EU (and it were unfavourable for the United States and Ukraine), then Kiev, in principle, has no reason to fight. Europe has avoided reaching an unambiguous decision, making the war inevitable.

Now only the cowardice of the Kiev authorities or the refusal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to fight can prevent the conflict. But this is unlikely. Kiev is more afraid of Washington than of war, and [as the Russian saying goes] “only the grave will cure” the marginal people and generals of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.